Ashen_Shugar
Literate
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Messages
- 33
The more I learn, the more I think Starfield is (1) a disappointment upon release, but (2) will be a pretty good game after patching, DLC, and mods. The story and world building will never be salvageable (generic), but could become a neat rpg/space survival sim with enough quests to keep it interesting.
Bethesda clearly bit off more than it could chew. The project is ambitious at the macro level (huge space RPG, orbits calculated in real time, procedural generation out the wazoo, modular construction of things in any location), but seems flat to me at the micro level (aforementioned genericness and lacking features that should obviously be in the game, but didn't make the cut).
For the ambition, I dub Starfield .
Todd took a big risk and there's something worthwhile in the result. Give me a risk that only pans out halfway over a "safe product" any day of the week.
Not gonna buy it yet... but if they can transplant some of the cool new engine innovations into a universe I'm actually interested in, like TES or Fallout, then I'll be pleased. In the meantime, I have enough on my backlog to not need Starfield.
Typically the better games score lower on release owing to their ambition. Thinking TOEE here with its sub 80 score. Sincerely hope their "big risk" translates into something memorable and worthwhile post patching and mods. From what i'm reading every aspect of the game is at best mediocre or subpar.
How is this is even an improvement over Fallout 3 (which is over 15 years old)? Graphics (from screenshots) appear on par (interiors/textures at least) with Deus Ex HR/MD (also over what 8 years old?).
But more to the point is the game fun? Does it keep you engaged and wanting to keep playing?